Location of Repository

The response of scientists to deliberative public engagement: a UK perspective

By Kevin Burchell


The purpose of this paper is to explore an important issue that appears to be somewhat neglected in work on deliberative and inclusive processes (DIPs) in environment and technology policy-making: the response of experts, especially scientists, to DIPs. Information in this area is clearly important to the future success of DIPs, in terms of identifying the barriers and opportunities that are presented by experts. More broadly, information about the responses of experts to DIPs is important in terms of the impact that increasingly prevalent DIPs might have on wider expert communities. As might be expected in an area that is somewhat neglected, the empirical evidence can be described as inconclusive. Some evidence is not particularly encouraging while other evidence is more positive. In the paper, I will explore some of this evidence and make conjectural comments on the implications that it might have for successful DIPs. Future research strategies for filling this empirical gap will also be explored

Topics: Q Science (General)
Year: 2006
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:6696
Provided by: LSE Research Online
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/6696/... (external link)
  • http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/PATH... (external link)
  • http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/6696/ (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    1. (2005). (forthcoming) Empiricist selves and contingent ‘others’: the performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy, Public Understanding of Science (accepted for publication
    2. (1994). Accounting for animal experiments: identity and disreputable “others”, doi
    3. (1995). Animal experiments, scientific uncertainty, and public unease, doi
    4. (1994). Enrolling the core set: the case of the animal experimentation controversy, doi
    5. (2006). Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies and emerging technologies,
    6. Group (2006a) Terms of engagement, workshop at Royal Society,
    7. Group (2006b) Nanotechnology Engagement Group: Policy Report 1, Involve, doi
    8. (2006). Head of Public Engagement,
    9. (2006). Nanoscientists meet nanopublics: a working paper by Jack Stilgoe,
    10. (2006). Sciencewise homepage,
    11. (2005). Scientific citizenships: self-representations of xenotransplantation’s publics, doi
    12. (2001). Switching between science and culture doi
    13. (2005). Talking to scientists: the role of scientific knowledge in environmental policy-making – a case study in biotechnology and genetics, unpublished PhD,
    14. (2000). The role of scientists in public debate, Wellcome Trust/MORI,
    15. (2004). The scientists think and the public feels’: expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food, doi

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.